{
  "id": 8689411,
  "name": "STATE v. L. A. PHIPPS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Phipps",
  "decision_date": "1877-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "203",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. 203"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1920,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.382972635249237e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4422726962073851
    },
    "sha256": "f71c0a867d3e923602c4febc55fe65593d685cabe08209e7ad77d4dc3fdf15dc",
    "simhash": "1:4face3cc1e684e7f",
    "word_count": 321
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. L. A. PHIPPS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "FaiR,clotii, J.\nThe defendant and Margaret Locklear wrere indicted for fornication and adultery.\nThe Solicitor entered a nolle prosequi as to Locklear and introduced her as a witness against' the defendant to prove the offence charged.\nWas she a competent witness'for that purposed\u00bb the question ? She was not until the Act of 1866, Bat. Rev. eh. 43, \u00a7 14, abrogating the long settled rules of evidence, was passed which made her evidence admissible. State v. Rose, Phil. 406.\nThe Act of 1869-70, eh. 177, repeals the above Act in its application to criminal matters and restored the common law rule of evidence ; but a subsequent Act, 1871-2, ch. 4, repeals the latter Act, and thus restores the competency of the witness.\nThe policy of legislation leading to this result is a matter for the consideration of the Legislature The Court can only declare the law as it finds it.\nThere is no error. Let this be certified to the end that the Superior Court may proceed according .to law.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "FaiR,clotii, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General and Mr. J. T. Morehead, for the State.",
      "Messrs. Dillard $ Gilmer, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. L. A. PHIPPS.\nIndietment \u2014 Fcrnieation and Adultery \u2014 Witness.\nIn a trial for fornication and adultery, a former defendant as to whom a nolle prosequi has been entered is a competent witness against the other defendant.\n{Slate v. Bose, Phil. 406, cited and approved.)\nIkdictmeNt against the defendant and Margaret Locklear for Fornication and Adultery, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of GuileoRD Superior Court, before Kerr, J.\nOn the trial of the case, the Solicitor for the State entered a noil. pros. as to Margaret Locklear and introduced her as a witness against the defendant who objected on the ground that she was incompetent. His Honor overruled the objection, and upon her evidence the jury rendered a'verdict, of guilty.\nRule for new trial. Rule discharged. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.\nAttorney General and Mr. J. T. Morehead, for the State.\nMessrs. Dillard $ Gilmer, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0203-01",
  "first_page_order": 215,
  "last_page_order": 216
}